Licence Appeal Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en matière de permis
FILE: 8403/MVIA
CASE NAME: 84033 v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Appeal under Section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 from an Impoundment Pursuant to Section 55.1(3) of the Act.
Applicant: 84033
-and-
Respondent: Registrar of Motor Vehicles
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: ANTOINE AOUAD, M.D., Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: SONIA DE SANTIS, Agent; SANJAY KAPUR, Agent
Heard in Toronto: November 20, 2013
REASONS FOR DECISION
A hearing was held on November 20, 2013, to consider the Applicant’s appeal pursuant to section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA” or the “Act”).
Pursuant to section 50.2 (5,) the Tribunal CONFIRMS THE IMPOUNDMENT. As a result, the Applicant’s motor vehicle will remain detained at the impound facility for 45 days.
BACKGROUND
A motor vehicle was impounded pursuant to section 55.1 of the Act and the impoundment was appealed by the owner. The owner, motor vehicle, and date of appeal in this matter are as follows:
Owner: The Applicant
Motor Vehicle: 2005 DODG CAR (the “vehicle”)
Date of Appeal: October 29, 2013
By way of preliminary matters, the Applicant asked that any evidence relating to his business be kept strictly confidential.
All documents were entered into evidence as exhibits with the consent of both parties.
ISSUES
As set out in the Applicant’s request for hearing (Exhibit #1), the owner appeals on the basis that the loss of the vehicle will result in exceptional hardship, all as provided in sections 50.2(3) (c) and (d) of the Act.
Should the Tribunal order the Registrar to release the motor vehicle on the basis that the owner of the motor vehicle exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver’s licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time in respect of which the vehicle was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension?
Should the Tribunal order the Registrar to release the motor vehicle on the basis that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship?
FACTS
Evidence for the Applicant
A summary of the Applicant’s evidence follows.
The Applicant’s written submission filed with the Tribunal in support of the appeal was entered as Exhibit # 1. In the Notice of Appeal, the Applicant wrote that the loss of the vehicle has caused and will continue to cause exceptional hardship in that the vehicle is needed to carry out the Applicant’s courier business. The Applicant further states that he had seen the suspended driver’s actual licence which “was to expire Nov 2013”.
During the hearing, the Applicant reiterated the comments in the Notice of Appeal, emphasized that he had actually seen his sub-contractor’s licence on the table.
The Applicant described how the suspended driver came to be driving the vehicle when it was impounded.
The Applicant testified that he is unable to rent a van, since he is in bankruptcy and has no credit cards, but is trying to “save face” with his clients, so that he can carry on his business.
According to the Applicant he also has some health issues that he cannot look after without a vehicle.
In cross-examination, the Applicant explained that he allowed his sub-contractor to drive the vehicle in order to take the dog to the vet.
The Applicant further confirmed that:
- he has seen the suspended driver’s licence on the top of the desk, but did not touch it;
- he did not ask to see the licence prior to giving care and control of the vehicle to the suspended driver;
- he has some health issues, but is not seeing the doctor as he had to “save the business”;
- there is no alternative to save the business;
- there is 911 service in the area where the Applicant lives.
- the Applicant has no trouble with his meals, as he is using the